Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition, Bewildering Magic or Paradox?
- From: Ray Vickson <RGVickson@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 30, 1:14 am, The TimeLord <math-n-physics-...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Am Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:36:33 -0700 schrieb Shubee <e.Shu...@xxxxxxxxx> in
42be138c-a4fe-4cad-bcbc-c7ec0402e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in
sci.physics.relativity:
It's not clear to me why the Lorentz transformation can't be reduced to
the Galilean transformation by resetting clocks, rescaling distance
measures and fiddling with clock rates according to the recipe on page
11 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfand
equations (48) to (58).
How do you answer this riddle?
Shubee
Easy. The Lorentz transformation
x' = gamma (x - v t)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = gamma (t - v x / c^2)
is not the same as the Galilean transformation
x' = x - v t
y' = y
y' = z
t' = t
Simple inspection reveals that. The only way the two can ever be the same
is when v=0; but Relativity already has that built in. Rescaling x or t
will not change the underlying nature of the transformation.
Taking c = infinity will also work.
Some derivations of Lorentz from first principles (not using light
velocity, etc.) end up with a Lorentz-type transformation having a
frame-independent constant k having the dimensions of 1/(velocity)^2.
The case k < 0 leads to unphysical behaviour, so can be rejected. Of
course, k = 0 gives Galilean, while k > 0 gives actual Lorentz, which
can then be re-written using k = 1/c^2, where c is a universal speed.
Such derivations do not claim there is any physical "thing" having
speed c, but they leave open the possibility that there is such a
thing. Of course, "light" seems to fit the bill, but even if some
future experiments give varying light speeds when performed to higher
accuracy than attainable up to now, that would still not invalidate
SR.
R.G. Vickson
By the way, you've already posted the link to your paper here and
elsewhere. I'm not impressed with that paper since it seems an
overanalyzing of a much simpler issue.
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is This a Subtle but [snip]
- From: The TimeLord
- Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition, Bewildering Magic or Paradox?
- From: Androcles
- Re: Is This a Subtle but [snip]
- Prev by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by Date: Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition, Bewildering Magic or Paradox?
- Previous by thread: Discount Wholesale (WWW.NOTJUSTSNEAKERS.COM) Air Jordan Six Rings (6 IX Rings) men's sneakers
- Next by thread: Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition, Bewildering Magic or Paradox?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
